Met apologise for 'sexist, derogatory' language when searching woman

[ArabellaScott]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/met-apologises-to-academic-for-sexist-derogatory-language

'The Metropolitan police have apologised and paid compensation to an academic for “sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language” used by officers about her when she was strip-searched.'

'Duff was arrested on 5 May 2013 on suspicion of obstructing and assaulting police after trying to hand a legal advice card to a 15-year-old caught in a stop-and-search sweep in Hackney – allegations she was later cleared of in court. '

Is anyone going to do something about the police, at all?

“Felix125

‘ArabellaScott
When she was cleared of all wrongdoing.
She was cleared later after a trial’

“The officer who arrested can't fast-forward time to see what the result at court was“

No, but the officer could try to think through whether the arrest they were carrying out was truly needed.

My guess though is that the police don’t usually need to worry too much about this, but, on this occasion, they picked on the wrong person/someone who was able to summon the strength afterwards to complain about how she was treated.

[quote Mumoftwoinprimary]@Felix125 What they should have done is made a sensible risk assessment. What was it they called her - “a bleeding heart leftie” and “some sort of socialist”. They knew exactly what she was. She was an annoying left wing student who didn’t like the police (in her opinion) not following stop and search procedures. She had a nice laminated card about it.

Is someone like that, with nice laminated cards, really likely to have a razor blade up her bum and use it to slash her wrists or stab the police officer?

She had already asked for a solicitor. Her plans were pretty obvious to anyone with any sense - solicitor comes, solicitor gets her released, she smiles smugly as she goes and writes article for college magazine (circulation 425) about the awfulness of the police. All this “she might be a danger to herself or someone else” is ridiculous.[/quote]
So anyone who is 'annoying left wing student' and has a 'nice laminated card' can't possibly be violent?

So the Manchester Bomber, Salman Abedi should have been treat as a low risk person and not in anyway possible of being violent - after all, he was a student at Manchester Uni,

Can you imagine if a few hours before the attack her was arrested for obstruct police - but because he was deemed to be an 'annoying left wing student' and has a 'nice laminated card' he wasn't searched and allowed to go on his way without any search at all. Would the public be OK with that, or would they hold the police to blame?

And again - I'm not saying that she was a terrorist - I using Abedi as an example of someone who seems to be a student on the one hand - has another side to them.

Also, the solicitor doesn't 'get them released'. Solicitor is there to advise their client for the interview. Depends where the solicitor is, that could be a few hours before they arrive. So where does the subject go whilst waiting?

So fine

In future - if we have an unknown person that comes into custody, refusing their details, is a completely unknown risk. We will just assume that they are fine, will have nothing them, no search will be done and they will be put in a cell whilst they wait for the solicitor.

If, 20 minutes later the detention officer checks on them and they have died of an overdose they took in the cell - who's fault does that lie with?

Felix125
I think in your heart of hearts you know what people are trying to say.

@ArabellaScott

The woman might have been 'irritating' or have had political views the police find distasteful or disagree with.

That does not make her a legitimate target for abuse, harassment and assault.

I have said quite a few times that she should not have been the victim of abuse and assault.

the process should have been followed - if not then that is an abuse of power.

And I have said that quite a few times now - but its worth saying again. I do not condone the abuse and offensive comments made to her.

I don't see why people are saying I'm 'closing ranks' and 'backing my colleagues up'

I am saying what the process should have been when an unknown risk is presented to custody.

People on here are saying that i am not listening - but perhaps i am not being listened to either - so i will say it again just to be clear - I do not condone the abuse, the stepping outside the law and offensive comments made to her.

Do terrorists regularly hand out cards about stop and search processes just before they blow up arenas? You are being ridiculous?

Although - you are correct. Some people do show very large red flags that they are about to commit a serious crime before they do - Wayne Couzens for example. And Michael Lane comes to mind. And Clarke Joslyn after the first police officer reported him for domestic abuse.

But far riskier is a woman is a card.

In the end the question comes down to - do we believe that Mr “treat her like a terrorist - I don’t care” was worried about her welfare?

People on here are saying that i am not listening - but perhaps i am not being listened to either - so i will say it again just to be clear - I do not condone the abuse, the stepping outside the law and offensive comments made to her.

Ok - yes or no - do you think the officer had her strip searched because he genuinely believed it was necessary? And do you believe that the strip search was done appropriately?

Mumoftwoinprimary 💯

@MarvellousMrsMaisel

You have got to be fucking kidding....you cannot see how to risk assess this woman expect for an intimate search? Go on have a try.... Say a search is off limits for whatever reason, maybe COVID related, not enough staff that day - or you haven't got sufficient grounds for a search (something/anything).... Now how might you deal with this woman/situation/risk?

So you have no knowledge of her at all - she is not on the systems and no one in custody has knowledge of her. Maybe its the first time she has been arrested. Maybe she has been arrested loads of times around the country and has loads of history of self harm, concealing drugs etc etc. Or she may be somewhere in the middle. Who knows - nobody knows - apart from her, but she is not telling you anything.

COVID can not be used to prevent a search. If you think some is a risk they have to be searched. Same if they have hepatitis, HIV etc etc

Not enough staff in custody means that custody would not open. Anyone arrested would be taken to the next available custody suite - even if its to another force.

Insufficient grounds for a strip search must mean that the risk has been lowered. So the person has given their details which have been verified and the intelligence on them is that they have no history for concealing items.

If there is insufficient grounds for a strip search - then a normal search will be done including a metal detector, physical search, pockets emptied, chords removed etc etc. It will be documented on the custody log that a normal search was done as there was insufficient grounds for a strip search.

Then if the person goes into the cell and removes a concealed item, the person will be strip searched, the custody record will be examined as to why a more thorough search wasn't done first. That person will also receive a 'conceals' marker on PNC so when they arrested again, they will be strip searched. Custody staff will then be part of an internal investigation.

@Mumoftwoinprimary

Do terrorists regularly hand out cards about stop and search processes just before they blow up arenas? You are being ridiculous?

Although - you are correct. Some people do show very large red flags that they are about to commit a serious crime before they do - Wayne Couzens for example. And Michael Lane comes to mind. And Clarke Joslyn after the first police officer reported him for domestic abuse.

But far riskier is a woman is a card.

In the end the question comes down to - do we believe that Mr “treat her like a terrorist - I don’t care” was worried about her welfare?

Do terrorist form part of anti establishment group that don't agree with powers such as stop & search?

And i was using that as an example. I'm not saying that he would have been stopped from handing out cards. I'm saying can you imagine he was stopped for some other reason, arrested for some offence for some reason and not searched?

She was cleared later after a trial

She was innocent. No crime took place. She was put on trial and found innocent.

@ArabellaScott

She was cleared later after a trial

She was innocent. No crime took place. She was put on trial and found innocent.

Which leads us to reflect on the actions of the police in the first place

Not Felix though. Clearly cut from the same cloth as the ones who arrested her.

Where do the police recruit these people from.

@Mumoftwoinprimary

People on here are saying that i am not listening - but perhaps i am not being listened to either - so i will say it again just to be clear - I do not condone the abuse, the stepping outside the law and offensive comments made to her.

Ok - yes or no - do you think the officer had her strip searched because he genuinely believed it was necessary? And do you believe that the strip search was done appropriately?

I think I have answered this

If someone is standing in front of custody staff and is an unknown risk (as a few posts above) do they err on the side of caution or just blow caution to the wind?

If she assaulted or sexual assaulted during the strip search then its clearly wrong. But as no of us were there, we can only assume.

I have put across what should happen (page 6/7 i think).

So it depends what happened during the search - if it was compliant, then she would have removed her own clothes and moved body parts to be seen accordingly. If it was not compliant of it was actively resisted against, then some form of restraint will have been used to complete the search.

Or do you think that if a person refuses to be strip searched compliantly - no strip search should be done?

@ArabellaScott

She was cleared later after a trial

She was innocent. No crime took place. She was put on trial and found innocent.

As i have said - at the point of arrest, the officer can not fast-forward time to see the court result.

And there was insufficient evidence to prove the offence after trial

CPS have deemed that there was sufficient evidence to run a court case with it.

It's bloody obvious she was arrested because police took offence that she was offering advice to young people about their rights. Safeguarding, my arse.
The teen arrested could have had a gun/ a machete down his trouser belt/ or a knife - he probably had a knife. The teen could pull out weapon and injure police (and obviously members of the public) - so had the police stepped back to allow ms duff, or any other member of the public, speak to teen and she had been stabbed who would be to blame - the police abviously for not following the rules. If People can't see the danger in harassing police during an arrest then they are naive and prefer to berate the police than actually think it through

Or do you think that if a person refuses to be strip searched compliantly - no strip search should be done?

She shouldn't have been stripped searched for handing out a business card ffs. What bit of this are you not getting. The police were clearly wrong in their arrest, as shown in the court case where she was cleared of any wrong doing. And you are clearly in the wrong for continuing to defend this toxic police force. Because you are one of them.

Have you ever been strip searched and your anus checked for weapons by the way, for doing nothing apart from handing out a business card. I'll wager you haven't. Tell me, how would that make you feel?

Was t she strip searched because she refused to give her name and address therefore she couldn't be processed - could have been anyone. And her bruises were due to being lifted to a police vehicle as she went limp when the wanted to arrest her - lifting a limp body would produce that sort of bruising round her wrists.
What isn't being explained is why she wouldn't give her name and address and went 'limp' instead of walking to vehicle - seems to me she wanted to be arrested.

@MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor

Or do you think that if a person refuses to be strip searched compliantly - no strip search should be done?

She shouldn't have been stripped searched for handing out a business card ffs. What bit of this are you not getting. The police were clearly wrong in their arrest, as shown in the court case where she was cleared of any wrong doing. And you are clearly in the wrong for continuing to defend this toxic police force. Because you are one of them.

Have you ever been strip searched and your anus checked for weapons by the way, for doing nothing apart from handing out a business card. I'll wager you haven't. Tell me, how would that make you feel?

What part of this are you not getting:

She was not arrested for handing out a business card

She was arrested for assault & obstructing a police officer

The police were not deemed to be wrong in their arrest by CPS or indeed the court. The CPS could have kicked it out before trial - but didn't. The court could have kicked it our before trial - but didn't

Both bodies proceeded with it as there was a case to answer.

What part of that are you not getting?

The question being why was she arrested in the first place. The police don't have the right to demand peoples details without reasonable grounds. Seems the me the so called grounds were made up after she refused to give her details.

She was arrested for assault & obstructing a police officer

An assault that didn't happen. See point about made up grounds.

do not condone the abuse, the stepping outside the law and offensive comments made to her.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you accept that Dr Duff was subjected to abuse by police officers who stepped outside the law and behaved in an offensive manner @Felix125.

Arrested for obstructing a p officer from carrying out their duties surely. Or maybe we should all join in next time we see police arresting someone .

Ok - so you believe that a strip search was necessary and done solely for her welfare and the safety of the police officers that dealt with her?

And done as respectfully as is possible in the circumstances?

It was just after this that their behaviour became disgusting, inappropriate and mysogynistic?

The only thing is - why did she keep fighting for nearly a decade to get the information? She can’t have heard what they said about her - she only knows what was done in the cell. Where they were apparently completely appropriate. And yet somehow she guessed that there would be CCTV that showed them being completely inappropriate.

How did she do that?

CPS have deemed that there was sufficient evidence to run a court case with it.

CPS are clearly compromised, too.

We all know the word of one police officer is believed over the word of a civilian. This is why police have to be held to the most rigorous standards.

@Spookytooth

Arrested for obstructing a p officer from carrying out their duties surely. Or maybe we should all join in next time we see police arresting someone .

Given the recent abduction and murder of Sarah Everard, I'm inclined to agree.

’The CPS could have kicked it out before trial - but didn't.’

When the police lie about someone’s behaviour and 100% of the ‘evidence’ against someone is what the police have said of course it will go to court.